Model
egyptmachine
Posts: 11365
El Paso, Texas, US
Art Silva Photography wrote:
You do know that most of our "implanted" citizens are from Texas right?! 
Can't blame them for leaving that flat dump lol!
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Gianantonio wrote:
I think having babies to stimulate the economy is a bad reason to have children. Exactly. Breeding more customers to buy more stuff that's made by poor people overseas who can't afford that stuff is not a sustainable model. Endless consumption leads to eventual shortages and poverty for everyone, except the businesspeople and politicians on the top of the pyramid of power and wealth.
Demographics are always changing. Seniors will be a large group for a while, then they'll die off and younger people will again be the majority.
India and China are badly overpopulated, but at the same time their governments feel the power of their numbers, and think that a falling population must also mean a falling international status.
A year or so ago, I saw a man in Africa complaining that it was difficult to feed his wife and five children, since the family's only income was his roadside umbrella repair stand. Of course it's difficult! You can't afford those kids. What were you thinking?
Model
modeled
Posts: 9334
San Diego, California, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
I know you won't, because no one ever does, but there it is.
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 8159
Turin, Piemonte, Italy
Lauren Reynolds MUA wrote:
The problem isn't not enough kids - it's that there's too many older people - "baby boomers" who have significantly longer life expectancies than previous generations due to better healthcare, better nutrition and prospects etc etc mean the population rocketed. Just making more little humans to balance it out is a short-sighted solution. A lower birth rate, although it'll cause problems initially with an aging population, in 100 years time will help stabilise the population. There's too many people on this planet as it is, the world's already struggling. Do you have any data to support this notion?
While I agree that there are a lot of baby boomers and there will be an issue of a smaller number of working people around to support the social security system these boomers will be looking to tap into, it's not an issue of life expectancy.
Do you know why Baby Boomers are called that? It's because they are a generation where family size increased dramatically over past generations. That means there are a lot of them (okay, us!).
Prior to the end of WWII, the Total Fertility Rate for women in the US was about 2.2 children. Over the years covered by the Baby Boom generation, the average was about 3.3 children--a 50% increase.
The TFR for 2011 is about 1.9. So it's not an issue of Boomers living longer. It's an issue of not enough "replacements" for the Boomers in the workforce.
Photographer
Ben Hinman
Posts: 596
Westwood, California, US
Babies mean more mouths to feed which is harder in a down economy, but its also a multi billion dollar industry. Although I'd say its less important than a lot of other factors. Everyone is freaking out about this "fiscal cliff", but what they don't realize is thats just government spending. Its only a disaster because government regulation has ruined what it means to be a capitalist society. Whats important for any economy is consumer "demand" and i suppose more babies would create more demand, but demand without consumer faith is just dooming the economy to tank. Before our economy can support more kids, advertising and business practices are going to have to change.
Model
Little Queenie
Posts: 6219
Indio, California, US
Gianantonio wrote:
Do you have any data to support this notion?
While I agree that there are a lot of baby boomers and there will be an issue of a smaller number of working people around to support the social security system these boomers will be looking to tap into, it's not an issue of life expectancy.
Do you know why Baby Boomers are called that? It's because they are a generation where family size increased dramatically over past generations. That means there are a lot of them (okay, us!).
Prior to the end of WWII, the Total Fertility Rate for women in the US was about 2.2 children. Over the years covered by the Baby Boom generation, the average was about 3.3 children--a 50% increase.
The TFR for 2011 is about 1.9. So it's not an issue of Boomers living longer. It's an issue of not enough "replacements" for the Boomers in the workforce. It is an issue of life expectancy. And with the marvels of modern medicine their lives are being extended.
Social security isn't the only issue. Medicare and Medicaid are a HUGE issue when it comes to taking care of an aging population. With the majority of seniors in long term care facilities on the governments dime, add in the fact that 70% of seniors 65 or older will receive long term care and the average stay in a nursing home is 2.4 years at a national average of $205 a DAY (That's over $70,000 a year and we aren't even taking into account 20 + years of inflation)...there is a problem. Someone has to pay for it and seniors aren't properly preparing themselves.
The baby boomer population is growing rapidly. They will make up 25% of the CA population alone. Baby boomers are considered the most rapidly increasing segment of American population.
Look, I'm not a fan of over population but responsible population. I don't think procreating is the answer to this problem. I think seniors better preparing themselves as well as the country preparing itself is the ultimate answer.
Photographer
Micyl Sweeney
Posts: 7442
Madison, Alabama, US
More babies = more on food stamps, medicaide and welfare. And how is that good for our economy and national debt?
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 28745
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
How does making children stimulate the economy, if the parents can't afford all the things a child needs that would help (child care, education, child food, clothing, toys, etc,)
We'd just be bringing a bunch of neglected children into a broke household with struggling parents who don't have the time and energy they ought to for their children.
Yes, very helpful
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 6020
Fairfax, Virginia, US
1. Worldwide, the data is very clear. The single best way to reduce population growth is to improve the living standards. As people live better, they have fewer kids.
2. This problem (negative population growth) is a killer for Italy and some parts of Western Europe. And it's funny to hear people get the heebie-jeebies about China b/c they've got a disaster on their hands...expanding population yes but a huge aging population and a younger population unable to support such numbers. By comparison the US is among the best in the developed world.
3. Quickest and best answer to this problem? Allow more immigration. Most immigrants tend to have bigger families (for a generation until they become more affluent). Most immigrants are younger (and are coming here to work or for education).
Ed
Model
egyptmachine
Posts: 11365
El Paso, Texas, US
Lisa Andresen wrote:
I don't know it doesn't make sense to me either. But apparently someone out there does. I wasn't even aware that we weren't having enough babies to begin with. The person who wrote that should take it down, its embarrassing "news" to have your name associated with.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
The economy is going to falter due to lack of children no matter what we do, we just won't be able to keep up with generation after generation to handle the baby boomers.
The answer already has to come from somewhere else.
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 8159
Turin, Piemonte, Italy
Lisa Andresen wrote:
I never said I agreed with it. And I don't even think it is suggesting that it is simply giving facts and information. I was just shocked that the birth rate was even low. Everyone I know is pregnant or just had a kid. Why such a defensive response? I never said you did agree with it. I didn't mention you at all. You asked for our thoughts about the article. I gave them. Why did you make it about you?
Your comment "I was just shocked that the birth rate was even low. Everyone I know is pregnant or just had a kid," is interesting and illustrates why we should depend less on our limited observations and look to systematic observation (i.e., research) to inform our world-views.
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 8159
Turin, Piemonte, Italy
Little Queenie wrote:
It is an issue of life expectancy. And with the marvels of modern medicine their lives are being extended.
Social security isn't the only issue. Medicare and Medicaid are a HUGE issue when it comes to taking care of an aging population. With the majority of seniors in long term care facilities on the governments dime, add in the fact that 70% of seniors 65 or older will receive long term care and the average stay in a nursing home is 2.4 years at a national average of $205 a DAY (That's over $70,000 a year and we aren't even taking into account 20 + years of inflation)...there is a problem. Someone has to pay for it and seniors aren't properly preparing themselves.
The baby boomer population is growing rapidly. They will make up 25% of the CA population alone. Baby boomers are considered the most rapidly increasing segment of American population.
Look, I'm not a fan of over population but responsible population. I don't think procreating is the answer to this problem. I think seniors better preparing themselves as well as the country preparing itself is the ultimate answer. Do you have data to support the claim that boomers' life expectancy is significantly different from the previous generation?
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
ShivaKitty wrote:
Good.
That's all I'm going to say.
Photographer
L A F
Posts: 8524
Davenport, Iowa, US
Lisa Andresen wrote:
I don't know it doesn't make sense to me either. But apparently someone out there does. I wasn't even aware that we weren't having enough babies to begin with. That's because, as a nation, we are having enough babies.
Model
Little Queenie
Posts: 6219
Indio, California, US
Gianantonio wrote:
Do you have data to support the claim that boomers' life expectancy is significantly different from the previous generation? I never said it was significantly different, but most scientists dosay they are living longer, when they are healthy. And when they are not healthy they are suffering from expensive diseases that we have to pay for.
Here's a nice table for you:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Little Queenie wrote:
Social security isn't the only issue. Medicare and Medicaid are a HUGE issue when it comes to taking care of an aging population. With the majority of seniors in long term care facilities on the governments dime, add in the fact that 70% of seniors 65 or older will receive long term care and the average stay in a nursing home is 2.4 years at a national average of $205 a DAY (That's over $70,000 a year and we aren't even taking into account 20 + years of inflation)...there is a problem. Someone has to pay for it and seniors aren't properly preparing themselves.
The baby boomer population is growing rapidly. They will make up 25% of the CA population alone. Baby boomers are considered the most rapidly increasing segment of American population. There are some big flaws in those statements. Most people don't need long term care at age 65, or even at age 75. Since people go into nursing homes at the end of their lives, and if the average stay in a nursing home is 2.4 years, as you say, and the average life expectancy in the US is near 80 years, most people in nursing homes will be over 75. Your mention of 20+ years of inflation is irrelevant. In 20 years, many baby boomers will be dead.
As well, how can baby boomers be "the most rapidly increasing segment of American population"? Their numbers are not growing. The last one was born in 1964, and the oldest ones, born in 1946, are starting to die off.
Model
Jordan Bunniie
Posts: 1755
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
ShivaKitty wrote:
Good.
That's all I'm going to say. 
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 8159
Turin, Piemonte, Italy
Little Queenie wrote:
I never said it was significantly different, but most scientists dosay they are living longer, when they are healthy. And when they are not healthy they are suffering from expensive diseases that we have to pay for.
Here's a nice table for you:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html I know. But the person I originally responded to did. Thanks for the data. It's not conclusive in terms of supporting your premise. But it is interesting.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
There one simple altruism that blows this long-term social engineering to shit:
Prices have not remained fixed (and they have, in a lot of sectors, outpaced inflation.)
People are having fewer kids, sure. Isn't that offset by the fact that we're paying so much more for consumer goods? I remember when milk was less than $2.00 a gallon (so was gas.)
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
William Kious wrote:
There one simple altruism that blows this long-term social engineering to shit:
Prices have not remained fixed (and they have, in a lot of sectors, outpaced inflation.)
People are having fewer kids, sure. Isn't that offset by the fact that we're paying so much more for consumer goods? I remember when milk was less than $2.00 a gallon (so was gas.) Holy crap! I remember when gas was 0.26 a gallon!
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Lohkee wrote:
Holy crap! I remember when gas was 0.26 a gallon! I didn't want to give away my age. LOL! I remember when it was less than a buck.
Model
Little Queenie
Posts: 6219
Indio, California, US
Top Level Studio wrote:
There are some big flaws in those statements. Most people don't need long term care at age 65, or even at age 75. Since people go into nursing homes at the end of their lives, and if the average stay in a nursing home is 2.4 years, as you say, and the average life expectancy in the US is near 80 years, most people in nursing homes will be over 75. Your mention of 20+ years of inflation is irrelevant. In 20 years, many baby boomers will be dead.
As well, how can baby boomers be "the most rapidly increasing segment of American population"? Their numbers are not growing. The last one was born in 1964, and the oldest ones, born in 1946, are starting to die off. End of life care is usually provided in hospice. But most people in LTC are projecting a huge change in nursing home populations as the American family dynamic changes. Less individuals want to be cared for by loved ones and this is usually what tempers nursing home populations. Beyond that, working families no longer have the means since most rely on two incomes leaving no room for someone to stay home to take care of grandpa. It's far easier for the elderly to spend down their assets and go on Medicaid.
And my statistics on the elderly population are correct. The Admin on Aging suspects that the population will have doubled between 2000 and 2030. And those born in 1946 aren't even 65 yet. We haven't even begin to get a real idea of the impact baby boomers will have.
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Little Queenie wrote:
And my statistics on the elderly population are correct. The Admin on Aging suspects that the population will have doubled between 2000 and 3030. And those born in 1946 aren't even 65 yet. We haven't even begin to get a real idea of the impact baby boomers will have. Check your arithmetic.
2012 - 1946 = 66
In a few weeks it will be 2013.
2013 - 1946 = 67
3030 is a long way away. It would be very hard to estimate the state of things a thousand years from now. Anything could happen by then.
Did you possibly mean 2030, not 3030?
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
That the author needs to learn how to research (or needs to lie more effectively).
Model
Cait Chan
Posts: 6272
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Lisa Andresen wrote:
Except if you read the article you would know that it's not very good. Do you also know that we're in the middle of recovering from a recession and its very hard for many people to support children right now?
Not rocket science.
Model
-Nicole-
Posts: 19211
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Lisa Andresen wrote:
It seems that the birth rate in the U.S. is at a record low. And they are saying this could have a negative effect on our economy. And that one way to boost the economy is to start having more babies. But in a time when women aren't getting married and are waiting longer to have children. And family sizes are decreasing to just one or two children. It doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.
Seems hard to believe when all you hear about is how we are so over populated all the time. And when at 23 years old it seems to me everyone on the planet is popping out kids left and right. hahah =]
What are your thoughts?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-falli … 18944.html Good.
My sister in law wants 10 children, but can barely afford to feed the 4 they already have.
A guy in Racine owes $90k of child support and has 9 children.
People need to STOP breeding if anything.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
-Nicole- wrote:
Good.
My sister in law wants 10 children, but can barely afford to feed the 4 they already have.
A guy in Racine owes $90k of child support and has 9 children.
People need to STOP breeding if anything. This is the kind of mentality that is so selfish and unfair to children.
Model
-Nicole-
Posts: 19211
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Jules NYC wrote:
This is the kind of mentality that is so selfish and unfair to children. It's disgusting.
They've been in foreclosure twice already. He's the only one that works and getting a check at about $450 a week isn't shit..
But, it's Gods will to decide how many children they have.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
cy be rea n wrote:
you should lead by example
and have at least 10 babies I second this. Lisa you should get to "work" right away.
Model
-Nicole-
Posts: 19211
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Lisa Andresen wrote:
You can all stop making this a personal attack I never said people should have more kids. Or that even if they can't afford them they should have kids for the sake of the economy. I simply thought the article was interesting due to the fact I would have never thought the birth rate was low at all. Yes you did. It's the title of your thread, LOL
"Americans need to have more babies!"
The name of the article is "Why a falling birth rate is a big problem"
Christ, Lisa
Photographer
Digital Photo PLUS
Posts: 5503
Lorton, Virginia, US
People should have as many babies as they want to. Or not have any. There are plenty of people in the other parts of the world that want to come here.
Turns out you give people a way to have sex without having babies and they will do just that.
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
Last week, I met a local lady in Placencia. She told my that her father has 17 children (10 girls and 7 boys). All of them were born with different mothers. I don't think the North American women will be willing to do that. 
Photographer
Reflected
Posts: 16390
New York, New York, US
One thing's sure and nothing's surer,
The rich get richer and the poor get - children.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
Our birth rate may be at an all time low, but the total population is at an all time high. We don't need to incentivize having more kids and personally, I think we should stop giving tax incentives after the second.
Some of our economic entitlement programs certainly do better when future generations of tax payers are larger than they previous generation, but that does not mean we are underpopulated. That means we need to reconsider how we pay for such programs. Relying on future generations to always continue to out number previous generations is simply not sustainable.
|
